[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 408 KB, 512x512, 0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13381937 No.13381937 [Reply] [Original]

What is objective basis of any system of virtue?

>> No.13382037

There is none. Culture is king

>> No.13382062

>>13381937
Power.

>> No.13382588
File: 133 KB, 523x452, 1554096086956.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13382588

It is what I will it to be

>> No.13382983

>>13382037
I might argue that it's social cohesion or the well-being of the in-group that defines the objective basis.

>> No.13383826

>>13382983
social cohesion means nothing if your group's value set eventually brings about its own destruction

i posit there are behaviors that aren't individually destructive but cause mayhem on a larger scale, as if the minute and infinitesimal wretchedness of the idea behind the behavior only manifests itself once it coalesces into a larger creature

>> No.13383856

>>13381937
Life/living itself and as for humans: the life "meta logou" (life with an understanding of itself). It's the only end in itself and every other good we strive for, serves that end.

>> No.13383872

>>13381937
Self-benefit obviously. The most moral and most virtuous thing is to do maximize your chance of benefit. It requires extreme mental gymnastics to avoid this conclusion

>> No.13384079

>>13382983
Well being of the in-group? You'd have to define "well-being" and that definition can only come from a contextual basis.

>> No.13384128

>>13384079
In general, the survival of the group.

For instance, I wonder if child sacrifice is common in certain traditions simply because the priest class was simply the high IQ group that realized that runaway reproduction was bad for the survival of the group by promoting a Malthusian trap. That would, ironically, be a moral justification for child sacrifice. This would clearly be relative only to this situation, and thus not a universal objective truth.

>> No.13384139

God, obviously.

>> No.13384599

>>13384128
>In general, the survival of the group.
That's not how organisms work though. Survival of the group is only a priority so far as the survival of the self. You don't see those priests killing themselves to prevent over population. They only do that if they believe in an after life that's even BETTER than the living world.

Virtue is defined as showing high moral standards, and moral is defined as right vs wrong. As far as any objective benchmark, the only thing that is consistent across every human is the drive for self survival. Everything else is contextual or cultural. Subjective.

Self survival, mechanically, isn't really within the scope of right/wrong though. It's just... an engine. It's just going through the only motions it can go through.

>> No.13384605 [DELETED] 

>>13381937
hating niggers

>> No.13384645

Killing niggers, the more niggers you kill the more virtuous your system of ethics is.

>> No.13384831

>>13381937
>ευδαιμονια/happiness
This is assumed by pretty much all philosophers.
Strangely enough, every single one of them postulated another way to reach it, afterwards.

>> No.13385041

>>13381937
The cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude. Virtues regarding the discipline to distribute goods properly.

>> No.13385104

Holy shit what terrible English
Isn't there a non-English language board you could post on where you could articulate your question in a language you, you know, actually speak proficiently?
Your post is literal gibberish in every way

>> No.13385480

>>13385104
the picture clearly states he is a cumbrain with brain damage

>> No.13385489

>>13384599
Actually, certain behavior in social animals has been observed to show the opposite. Males who can't find a mate often have selfless behavior that's good for the pack. It's called kin altruism and was studied by W.D. Hamilton and others.

>> No.13385657

>>13385104
>>13385480

this

>> No.13385685

>>13385489
That's at least controversial if not outdated - look for Edward Wilson's newer works on the topic. Apart from careing of the brood higher animals normally don't act altruistic. Take gophers for example: a long time people thought the "watchman" of a clan acted altruistic when they endangered themselves peering for enemies, but instead they are sexually prefered by the females in return.
Sex and survival are the things all animals strive for naturally. Sharing and careing? Only for the own brood.

>> No.13386233

>>13385489
>kin altruism
Don't buy it. The definition literally suggests it's not altruistic at all. Individuals that take care of kin because:
1) High standing in the group, due to providing benefits, ensures the group is more likely to take care of you
2) Helping kin survive propagates ones own genetics because you share genetics with those individuals. They are an extension of the self.

>> No.13386865

>>13381937
"the value of anything is how much it hurts"
- shriekback

>> No.13386886

Fukuyama's book Trust:

>> No.13386966
File: 68 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault(4).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13386966

>>13381937
The ethical axiom of life, and the primacy of values.

>> No.13387079
File: 9 KB, 210x230, st,small,215x235-pad,210x230,f8f8f8.lite-1u3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13387079

>>13381937
a good will

>> No.13387650
File: 19 KB, 500x590, dqlbzun2hzn21.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13387650

>>13381937
Across all dimensions?
Furthering definiteness of competency across all potential social conflict & resolution systems. Picture multitude heaps of sand all increasing in volume and accumulating to become a tip of all heaps, that's the highest virtue (something like God). "The highest virtue is not virtuous, and that is why it's is virtuous.
I might sound like an incoherent idiot but I am trying to compress information.

>> No.13388163

>>13381937
The will

>> No.13389191

>>13387650
>The highest virtue is not virtuous, and that is why it's is virtuous
Do you mean that it is not virtuous in-itself, or that it isn't virtuous in relation to others? I might understand what you mean

>> No.13389380

>>13381937
Beauty.

>> No.13389521

>>13381937
>What is objective basis of any system of virtue?
Is this the oldest question of mankind? We've dropped the God idea, why do people not care about the question anymore?

I think the govermants and laws have replaced God, no one bothers to ask what rules they should follow because there's already the law to follow

>> No.13389524

>>13383872
>moral and most virtuous
You've muddied your own argument by adding these terms since they beg the question of "says who"

>> No.13389544
File: 106 KB, 900x1350, babypalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13389544

>>13389521
>no one bothers to ask what rules they should follow because there's already the law to follow
That very position is called moral illiteracy.
And now, tell me how those laws are justified.

>> No.13389564

>>13389544
I didn't say it was justified you mong, didn't you read my post? I'm was wondering why it's not a popular question in current times with most people whilst that very question shaped a lot of our past

>> No.13389577

>>13381937
eudaimonia

read aristotle

>> No.13390134

>>13381937
reality. Which is to say, the rule of power. The powerful are right because if someone is not powerful, his arguments are most likely weak.

>> No.13390613

>>13387650
this